| Literature DB >> 27323907 |
Bianca Brijnath1, Joanne Protheroe, Kamal Ram Mahtani, Josefine Antoniades.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low levels of mental health literacy (MHL) have been identified as an important contributor to the mental health treatment gap. Interventions to improve MHL have used traditional media (eg, community talks, print media) and new platforms (eg, the Internet). Evaluations of interventions using conventional media show improvements in MHL improve community recognition of mental illness as well as knowledge, attitude, and intended behaviors toward people having mental illness. However, the potential of new media, such as the Internet, to enhance MHL has yet to be systematically evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: Internet; health care seeking behavior; health literacy; intervention study; mental health; social stigma
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27323907 PMCID: PMC4932246 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5463
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 2Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials.
Quality indicators and limitations for randomized controlled trials.
| Authors | Recruitment | Data collection | Attrition | Adherence | Limitations |
| Christensen et al [ | Election roll | Pre/post | Lost to follow-up: 18% for BluePages, 33% for MoodGYM, and 12% for control | Yes | Attrition rate |
| Griffiths et al [ | Election roll | Pre/post | Lost to follow-up: 18% for BluePages, 33% for MoodGYM, and 12% for control | Not reported, but reported in Christiansen et al [ | Small effect sizes |
| Costin et al [ | Election roll | Pre/post (3 weeks after intervention) | Control (high/low distress): 14.5% | Yes | Power calculations suggest larger sample required |
| Kiropoulos et al [ | Welfare and social groups | Pre/post/1 week | 0% (one-off access to website) | Not applicable | Sample may not be representative |
| Rotondi et al [ | Community mental health centers inpatient units | Pre/post/3, 6, 12 months | Patients: 3% | Yes, high adherence | Small sample size |
| Taylor-Rodgers and Batterham [ | University | Pre/post | Control: 18% | Yes, 65.4% of intervention and 70.4% of control viewed all 3 Web pages | Small sample size |
| Lintvedt et al [ | University | Pre/post/2 months | Control: 28% | Not reported | Attrition rate |
| Deitz et al [ | Employees in 1 worksite | Pre/post | Not adequately reported: given response rate for intervention: 96%, control: 98%, but 22% of total sample did not view Web-based material | Not reported | Could not monitor “dosage” of intervention |
| Farrer et al [ | Mental health support hotline (Lifeline) | Pre/post/6-12 months | 31% at postintervention | Not reported | Small sample size |
| Gulliver et al [ | Sports organizations | Pre/intervention week 1-2/post/3-6 months | 49.2% at follow-up | Not reported | Small sample |
Quality indicators for nonrandomized controlled trials.
| Authors | Recruitment | Randomization | Blindinga | Data | Attrition | Missing | Adherence | Limitations |
| Shandley et al [ | Not reported | N/Ab | N/A | Pre/post/2 months | Post: 42.1% | ITTc | Yes | Attrition; |
| Finkelstein and Lapshin [ | University medical school | N/A | N/A | Pre-post (immediate) | Not applicable/data collected immediate pre/post | N/A | N/A | Follow-up; |
| Li et al [ | University | N/A | N/A | Pre/post | Post: 42.1% | ITT | Not reported in detail | Attrition; |
| Roy et al [ | Military services | N/A | N/A | Pre/post/optional at 10 days | Post: 0% (only 1 event of using website) | N/A | Not reported | Lack of reporting on methods; |
a Blinding of participants and/or personnel.
b N/A: not applicable.
c ITT: intention-to-treat.